NTREnhanced LunarBase Supply Using Existing Launch Fleet Capabilities

1
NTR-Enhanced Lunar-Base Supply Using Existing
Launch Fleet Capabilities

• John Bess

Idaho National Laboratory
Emily Colvin
Georgia Institute of Technology
Paul Cummings
University of Michigan
Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space ANS
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA June 14-19, 2009
2
Objective

• Assess the feasibility of employing current
  Earth-to-orbit launch vehicles and a nuclear
  thermal rocket engine to deliver a 21 metric ton
  payload to the lunar surface

2
3
Mission Characterization
LSAM Burns to Achieve LLO
LEO
EDS Detaches from CaLV Burns to Circularize
Orbit Achieve LEO
Launch on CaLV
Earth
Moon
Earth
LSAM Lands
LSAM Burns to Descend to Lunar Surface
LLO
TLI
EDS Burns to Achieve TLI
Delivery of 21 metric tons in support of a lunar
base
LSAM Detaches from EDS
NASAs Exploration Systems Architecture Study
Final Report. NASA-TM-2005-214062, November 2005
4
NTR-Enhanced ESAS Architecture

• Substitution of the chemical EDS with a NTR
• Increase lunar surface payload by 36.2
• or
• Reduce IMLEO by 24.1

Using a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to Support a Lunar
Outpost Is It Cost Effective? STAIF 2007.
5
What Makes This Study Different?

• Assume that the Ares rockets and other proposed
  earth-to-orbit launch systems will be unavailable
  for use
• Use only existing launch vehicles coupled with a
  NTR to provide lunar support

6
Launch Fleet Characterization

• Assessed characteristics of various foreign and
  domestic launch vehicles
• Limitations were based on volume and not mass
  restraints for delivery to LEO
• Liquid hydrogen propellant
• Launch vehicles and facilities within the United
  States were preferred
• Reduce security and handling concerns

7
Delta IV Heavy

• Boeing
• Launch Facilities
• Space Launch Complex 37B, Cape Canaveral Air
  Force Station, FL
• Space Launch Complex 6, Vandenberg Air Force
  Base, CA
• Characteristics
• 5-m ID, 13.8-m long faring
• 50,800 lb LEO
• 253 M (2004) per launch

8
Atlas V Heavy

• Lockheed Martin
• Launch Facilities
• Space Launch Complex 41, Cape Canaveral Air Force
  Station, FL
• Space Launch Complex 3-East, Vandenberg Air Force
  Base, CA
• Characteristics
• 4.6-m ID, 12.2-m long faring
• 27,500 lb LEO
• 138 M (2004) per launch

9
Rendezvous with Orbital Assembly

• Six rockets needed
• 1 reactor, shielding, structural
• 1 payload, LSAM
• 4 liquid hydrogen propellant
• NTR specific impulse of 850 s
• An Isp of 950 s would require only four launch
  vehicles

10
Nuclear Thermal Rocket Engine

• 650 MW tungsten-cermet reactor
• 93-enriched HEU-O2
• 45-cm-thick ZrH shadow shield
• H2 flow rate
• 18.0 kg/s (850 s)
• 16.1 kg/s (950 s)

11
Assembly Logistics

• In-orbit infrastructure
• Independent orbital space garage
• Expansion of the International Space Station
• Multi-launch coordination and timely construction
• Mitigate H2 boil-off concerns
• Development of in-space machining and welding
  that have already been demonstrated

12
Evaluation of Launch Costs

• Reported launch cost estimates for the Ares
  rockets are 3K/lb (7K/kg) to LEO
• 875M to place 125 metric tons in LEO
• 12K/kg for Delta IV and Atlas V rockets
• 1.4B to launch 6 rockets
• The Ares rockets use economy of scale for
  reduced launch cost
• Delta II and Atlas 2AS launch costs were still
  12K/kg
• Similarly, a Ares V rocket would cost 1.5B

13
Additional Launch Costs

• NTR engine
• 3B for contained test facility
• 1B for SAFE testing
• In-orbit assembly
• Dominated by transportation costs, which are
  sensitive to demand
• Human assembly with associated infrastructure to
  cost 10 of total (140M)
• Extra structural materials and assembly
• Assumed 140M

14
Cost Estimate for Lunar Base Supply (B)
15
Additional Cost and Logistics Needs

• Upgrade costs for new vehicle development and
  expansion of launch facilities are unknown
• Launch costs heavily influenced by supply and
  demand
• Additional costs may exist for coordinating
  multiple launches, especially near the ISS
• Current launch systems are not man-rated and
  usable only for material transport

16
Developing Space Exploration Capabilities

• Establishing NTR propulsion capabilities for
  other missions
• Mars and beyond, reusable rockets, fast transit
  capabilities
• In-orbit construction allows for use of any
  launch vehicle system to build the rocket size
  of choice
• Not limited to a single quantized vehicle type
• Loss of a single launch vehicle does not
  jeopardize the entire mission
• Extraterrestrial assembly and repair techniques

17
Recent Developments in the News

• The Orlando Sentinel (4/2/09) Cost for
  Constellation has Ballooned to 44 Billion
• Parabolic Arc (4/4/09) Space Frontier
  Foundation Will Campaign to Kill Ares
• Fund cheapest medium-lift vehicle launcher
• The Orlando Sentinel (4/23/09) NASAs Internal
  Ares V Launch Date May Be Delayed by Two Years
• Space News (5/9/09) ULA Considering Ways to
  Alleviate Launch Bottlenecks.
• Build additional Atlas 5 launch infrastructure
• Purchase multiple vehicles at a time
• The Aerospace Daily and Defense Report (6/15/09)
  Delta IV Cheaper than Ares (for ISS) but at the
  Cost of Time

18
Conclusions

• Costs have been estimated for the use of existing
  launch vehicles and a NTR to deliver 21 metric
  tons to the lunar surface
• 60-80 greater than the estimated 1.5B cost
  for an Ares V rocket
• Development costs have not been fully assessed
  for either systems
• Benefits of developing in-space construction
  allows for the development of a more robust,
  lower risk exploration architecture

18
19
Acknowledgments

• Center for Space Nuclear Research
• Director Steve Howe
• 2006 CSNR Summer Fellows
• Idaho National Laboratory
• Jim Werner

20
This work was performed by the Center for Space
Nuclear Research under the direction of Battelle
Energy Alliance, LLC (subcontract 43238) under
Contract No. DE-AC07-05ID14517 with the U.S.
Department of Energy